In our trial, we investigated the effects of including dietary fats, specifically tallow and palm oil (PO), on growth performance and nutrient digestibility in finishing pigs. Additionally, we assessed their impact on backfat thickness, carcass grade, meat quality, and the fatty acid (FA) profile of the meat. In total, 160 finishing pigs ([Landrace × Yorkshire] × Duroc) with an average body weight (BW) of 50.36 ± 1.59 kg ([16 replications/treatment, five pigs] [two gilts and three barrows]/treatment, 12-week trial) were arbitrarily distributed to 1 of 2 dietary treatments: TRT1, basal diet + tallow (2.8%); TRT2, basal diet + PO (2.8%). At Week 8, there was an increased average daily feed intake and decreased feed conversion ratio in the PO diet compared to the tallow diet (p < 0.05). The digestibility of nutrients, backfat thickness, and carcass grade did not change substantially (p > 0.05). The PO-included diet increased sensory evaluation and water holding capacity of meat compared to the tallow diet (p < 0.05). PO-supplemented pigs showed higher (p < 0.05) FA percentages of palmitoleic acid (C16:1), margaric acid (C17:0), arachidic acid (C20:3n3), ω-3 FA, ω-6: ω-3, ΣPUFA (polyunsaturated FA), and MUFA (monounsaturated FA) than the tallow diet. Moreover, the percentage of linoelaidic acid (C18:2n6t), ΣUSFA (unsaturated FA), and PUFA also tended to increase (p < 0.10) in the PO-included diet. In summary, the inclusion of PO in the diet positively influenced growth performance, meat quality, and the FA profile, indicating its potential as a beneficial fat supplement for finishing pigs. These results, obtained from a 12-week trial under controlled conditions, support the use of dietary PO to improve production performance in finishing pigs. However, further studies are necessary to investigate the long-term effects, dose-response relationships, and potential interactions with environmental and genetic factors under varied commercial conditions.

1 Introduction

In the diets of monogastric animals like pigs, fats and oils serve not only as concentrated energy sources but also provide essential monounsaturated (MUFA) and polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA), which play critical roles in metabolic function, immune modulation, and the development of meat quality traits (Gläser et al. 2002; Minelli et al. 2023). Fat supplementation is especially crucial for growing and finishing pigs because their diets have high energy demands. Furthermore, fats help minimise the heat increment from feeding, which is advantageous during thermal stress (Lima et al. 2016). Digestibility varies based on the type of fat. Animal fats, such as tallow, typically contain a higher proportion of saturated fatty acids (SFA), resulting in lower digestibility and energy value compared to vegetable oils, which are richer in unsaturated fatty acids (UFA) like oleic, linoleic, and linolenic acids (Jørgensen et al. 1993). Combining animal fats with vegetable oils can improve lipid digestibility by increasing the UFA: SFA ratio, thereby stimulating lipase activity (Mountzouris et al. 1999). Among vegetable oils, palm oil (PO) is particularly noteworthy; it is the second most widely used vegetable oil globally and is rich in palmitic acid (16:0) and oleic acid (18:1 n-9), which account for 43.5% and 36.6% of its lipid composition, respectively (N. Ochang et al. 2007).

PO also contains beneficial micronutrients, including β-carotene, tocopherols, and tocotrienols, along with a favourable balance of SFAs at 50%, MUFAs at 40%, and PUFAs at 10%. These components contribute to improved animal performance, antioxidant status, and carcass characteristics (Babalola et al. 2011). Compared to other vegetable oils, PO is more cost-effective, widely available, and has a relatively stable FA profile, making it a practical alternative for livestock diets. Fats and oils used in pig rations showed a high impact on the digestible energy of the overall rations, exceeding the calculated dietary energy (Tartrakoon et al. 2016). If saturated fats like tallow or palm kernel oil (PKO) are included in the diet, the enhancement of the iodine value of pork fat caused by PUFAs in the diet can be prevented (Gatlin et al. 2003; Teye et al. 2006). Morel et al. (2008) demonstrated that changing the animal product to an all-plant product in a pig diet had no impact on pig performance but affected the FA profile. The dietary fat inclusion in pig diets had effects on growth efficiency, nutrient utilisation, backfat thickness (BFT), carcass grade, meat quality, and FA composition (Apple et al. 2009; Liu et al. 2018; Verge-Mèrida et al. 2021). Supplementing fish oil rich in docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) positively influences performance and immunity, potentially aiding weaner pigs in coping with the stress associated with transitioning from liquid to solid feed (Upadhaya and Kim 2021). Similarly, the inclusion of coated fish oil enriched in DHA enhanced growth performance (GP) and increased ω-3 FA levels in both loin and belly fat of finishing pigs (Wahid et al. 2024). The incorporation of soybean oil into the diet enhanced GP, improved carcass traits, elevated oleic acid and USFA levels, and reduced SFA in pork (Atoo et al. 2025). Moreover, incorporating 2%−6% canola oil into the diet of finishing pigs progressively increases oleic acid and MUFA content, while also improving the ω-6 to ω-3 ratio in pork, without negatively impacting production performance or meat quality (Soni-Guillermo et al. 2022). Alternatively, some studies failed to show the impact of feeding finishing pigs diets formulated with fat on carcass composition (Teye et al. 2006; Eggert et al. 2007).

To our knowledge, studies about the effects of dietary fat inclusion on the performance of finishing pigs are limited. We hypothesised that including dietary fat in the form of PO or tallow would have differential effects on the GP, nutrient utilisation, carcass characteristics, and meat quality of finishing pigs. Specifically, we anticipated that PO, due to its higher content of UFAs and beneficial micronutrients, would improve digestibility, enhance energy efficiency, and create a more favourable FA profile in pork compared to tallow. This hypothesis is based on the premise that the type and composition of dietary fat influence not only production performance but also the nutritional and sensory quality of pork. So, this study was conducted to estimate the effects of fat inclusion on production efficiency, nutrient absorption, meat quality, and meat FA profile in finishing pigs.

2 Materials and Methods

The Animal Care and Use Committee of Dankook University permitted the experimental protocol (Approval no: DK-2-2137). The study was carried out at Dankook University's swine research laboratory in Cheonan, Republic of Korea.

2.1 Animal Husbandry and Dietary Regimens

Before analysis, all equipment and pens for use were sterilised. A total of 160 finishing pigs ([Landrace × Yorkshire] × Duroc) were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 dietary treatments (16 replicates per treatment, 2 gilts, and 3 barrows per pen) for 12 weeks according to body weight (BW) (average initial weight 50.36 ± 1.59 kg) and gender. All pigs were randomly assigned to treatment groups and pens using a random number to reduce allocation bias and ensure comparability among groups. The dietary treatment groups were TRT1, basal diet + tallow, 2.8%; and TRT2, basal diet + PO, 2.8%. The FA composition of the test feed (PO and tallow) was provided by Daehan Feed Co. Ltd. (South Korea) was provided by the company Daehan Feed Co. Ltd. (South Korea) (Table 1). Table 2 presents the calculated values of dietary FAs. The nutrient composition of all diets was designed to meet or exceed the nutritional requirements for finishing pigs as outlined by the NRC National Research Council (2012) (Table 3). All the pigs were kept in an environmentally maintained room with a mechanical aeration system and a slatted plastic floor. The desired room temperature and humidity were set at 25°C and 60%, respectively. Each pen was supplied with a self-feeder and nipple drinker made of stainless steel to permit the pigs' ad libitum availability of feed and water.

Table 1. Fatty acid composition of the tested product.

	Tallow	Palm oil
Fatty acid (%)
Myristic acid (C14:0)	3.19	1.01
Palmitic acid (C16:0)	26.31	43.54
Palmitoleic acid (C16:1)	3.92	0.00
Stearic acid (C18:0)	21.24	4.50
Elaidic acid (C18:1)	38.60	39.81
Linoelaidic acid (C18:2n6t)	2.90	10.09
Alpha-linolenic acid (C18:3n3)	0.77	0.36
Arachidic acid (C20:0)	1.13	0.42
Eicosenoic acid (C20:1)	0.34	0.13
Erucic acid (C22:1n9)	0.26	0.00

Table 2. Fatty acid composition of the diets.

	Phase 1		Phase 2
	TRT1 (tallow 2.8%)	TRT2 (palm oil 2.8%)	TRT1 (tallow 2.8%)	TRT2 (palm oil 2.8%)
Total fatty acids (%)
Myristic acid (C14:0)	1.34	0.44	1.32	0.44
Palmitic acid (C16:0)	17.40	24.39	17.32	24.23
Palmitoleic acid (C16:1)	1.56	0.02	1.54	0.02
Stearic acid (C18:0)	9.73	2.91	9.61	2.87
Elaidic acid (C18:1)	31.40	31.89	31.42	31.91
Linoelaidic acid (C18:2n6t)	14.39	17.31	13.29	16.18
Alpha-linolenic acid (C18:3n3)	1.24	0.96	1.15	0.95
Arachidic acid (C20:0)	0.73	0.44	0.74	0.45
Eicosenoic acid (C20:1)	0.13	0.04	0.12	0.04
Erucic acid (C22:1n9)	0.08	0.06	0.09	0.01
Saturated fatty acid (SFA)	29.20	28.18	28.99	27.99
Monounsaturated fatty acid (MUFA)	33.17	32.01	33.17	31.98
Polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA)	15.63	18.27	14.44	17.13

Table 3. Composition of finishing pig diets.

	Experimental diet
	Phase 1		Phase 2
	TRT1 (tallow 2.8%)	TRT2 (palm oil 2.8%)	TRT1 (tallow 2.8%)	TRT2 (palm oil 2.8%)
Ingredients (%)
Corn	69.78	69.78	74.90	74.90
Soybean meal	12.12	12.12	6.96	6.96
DDGS	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00
Tallow	2.80	—	2.80	—
Palm oil	—	2.80	—	2.80
MDCP	1.10	1.10	0.96	0.96
Limestone	0.72	0.72	0.70	0.70
Salt	0.30	0.30	0.30	0.30
Methionine (99%)	0.05	0.05	0.08	0.08
Lysine (78%)	0.53	0.53	0.58	0.58
Threonine (99%)	0.12	0.12	0.20	0.20
Tryptophan (99%)	0.05	0.05	0.09	0.09
Mineral mixa	0.20	0.20	0.20	0.20
Vitamin mixb	0.20	0.20	0.20	0.20
Choline (25%)	0.03	0.03	0.03	0.03
Total	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00
Calculated value
Crude protein, %	15.00	15.00	13.00	13.00
Calcium, %	0.60	0.60	0.55	0.55
Phosphorus, %	0.55	0.55	0.50	0.50
Lysine, %	1.00	1.00	0.90	0.90
Methionine, %	0.30	0.30	0.30	0.30
Threonine, %	0.65	0.65	0.65	0.65
Tryptophan, %	0.20	0.20	0.20	0.20
ME, kacl/kg	3300.00	3300.00	3303.00	3303.00
Fat, %	6.40	6.44	6.50	6.53

Abbreviations: DDGS, distiller's dried grains with soluble, MDCP, monodicalcium phosphate; ME, metabolisable energy.
^a Provided per kg diet: Fe, 115 mg as ferrous sulfate; Cu, 70 mg as copper sulfate; Mn, 20 mg as manganese oxide; Zn, 60 mg as zinc oxide; I, 0.5 mg as potassium iodide; and Se, 0.3 mg as sodium selenite.
^b Provided per kilograms of diet: vitamin A, 13,000 IU; vitamin D3, 1700 IU; vitamin E, 60 IU; vitamin K₃, 5 mg; vitamin B₁, 4.2 mg; vitamin B₂, 19 mg; vitamin B₆, 6.7 mg; vitamin B₁₂, 0.05 mg; biotin, 0.34 mg; folic acid, 2.1 mg; niacin, 55 mg; d-calcium pantothenate, 45 mg.

2.2 GP and Nutrient Digestibility (ND)

The feed consumption was estimated on a per-pen basis. The recorded data on feed consumption and pigs' BW were used to calculate the average daily gain (ADG), average daily feed intake (ADFI), and feed conversion ratio (FCR).

To evaluate the diet's digestibility of dry matter (DM), crude protein (CP), and energy (E), 0.2% Cr₂O₃ was utilised as a non-digestible indicator 1 week before fecal assembly. The fecal specimens were collected at the end of Week 12 using rectal messages from two pigs in every pen (one male and one female). Then the specimens were pooled on a per-pen basis, and the representative samples were kept in a refrigerator at −20°C until analysis. The fecal specimens were crushed to a size that has the ability to move through a 1 mm screen and then dried at 60°C for 72 h before analysis. The diet and fecal samples were examined to regulate DM and CP using the Association of Official Analytical Chemists methodology (AOAC International 2010). Ultraviolet spectrophotometry (Shimadzu, UV-1201) was used to measure the amount of chromium. The heat combustion in the samples was measured using Parr 6100 bomb calorimeter (Parr Instrument Co., Moline, IL) to determine E. Apparent total tract digestibility was then estimated by the formula described by Biswas and Kim (2022).

2.3 Meat BFT, Lean Percentage, and Carcass Grade

At the initial, Week 8, and 12, BFT and lean meat percentage (LMP) were measured using pig-log 105 (Carometec Food Technology, Denmark) to estimate the BFT and LMP (6.5 cm area on the right and left end frames). BFT (mm), carcass weight, and carcass grade were also measured. Based on marbling, lean colour, and stomach streak circumstances, the quality of pig carcasses was rated as “Grade 1+,” “Quality Grade 1,” or “Grade 2” (KAPE—Korea Institute for Animal Products Quality Evaluation 2010). Carcass BFT was adapted to a body mass of 115 kg, as stated by Ha et al. (2010).

2.4 Examine Meat Quality

After a 12-week study period (with 32 pigs per treatment), one male and one female from every single pen were slaughtered at a nearby slaughterhouse. A stunning (automated system) method was used to kill the pigs at 240 V (1.25–1.3 amps, 3 s), accompanied by haemorrhage and dissection. Carcasses were then stored in a refrigerator at 4°C. Meat quality analysis was performed on the meat from the longissimus muscle area (LMA). At room temperature (25°C), the sensory attributes of colour, firmness, marbling, and iodine value were measured following the National Pork Producers Council (NPPC 2000) criteria. According to the technique described by Dang and Kim (2020), lightness (L*), redness (a*), and yellowness (b*) values, pH, water-holding capacity (WHC), LMA, cooking loss, and drip loss were measured.

2.5 Meat Fatty Acid Profile

The specimens were frozen separately after haemorrhage and dissection of pigs in preparation for acetylation and gas chromatographic fractionation. The tissue samples were isolated using hexane: isopropanol (3:2, vol/vol). After the FAs had been transformed into methyl esters, the specimen was appropriately mixed with 2 mL of KOH-MeOH (5%) and 0.5 ml of toluene before being heated at 70°C for 8 min and then cooled in cold water. The sample was once again chilled before 3 mL of 5% NaCl was included and thoroughly combined. Fatty acid methyl esters (FAME) were extracted from the specimens using 5 mL of distilled water and 0.5 mL of hexane after the samples had been properly mixed with a vortex and centrifuged at 3000g for 5 min. With sodium sulfate, the top phase was recovered and dried. A spectrometry system (HP5890) equipped with a flame ionisation detector (FID) (Hewlett Packard 5890 Series II, Hewlett-Packard, Palo Alto, CA) was used to analyse specimens for total FA. FAME analysis was conducted using a gas chromatography system (Series II; Hewlett-Packard, Palo Alto, CA, USA) equipped with a FID. A Supelcowax-10 fused silica capillary column (Supelco, Bellefonte, PA, USA) was used, with helium as the carrier gas at a flow rate of 1.2 mL/min. The oven temperature was programmed to increase from 220°C to 240°C at a rate of 2°C/min, while the injector and detector temperatures were set at 250°C and 240°C, respectively. One microliter of each sample was injected in split mode (50:1). For quantification, methyl nonadecanoate (C19:0) was utilised as an internal standard. Calibration curves were produced using a mixture of known FA methyl ester standards (Sigma-Aldrich, USA), and the identification of individual FAs was based on retention times relative to the standards. The results were expressed as grams per 100 g of total identified FAs.

2.6 Statistical Analysis

The pen was regarded as the experimental unit for all analyses. A Student's t-test was performed using SAS software (version 9.4; SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA 2014) to compare differences between the two dietary treatment groups. Data variability was expressed as the standard error of the mean (SEM). Differences were deemed statistically significant at p < 0.05, while values between 0.05 and 0.10 were interpreted as trends (*indicates significance at p < 0.05; **indicates significance at p ≤ 0.01).

3 Results

3.1 GP

The impact of dietary fat on finishing pigs' GP is presented in Table 4. Pigs fed the PO diet showed significantly higher ADFI and decreased FCR (p = 0.029 and p = 0.015, respectively) at Week 8 compared to those fed the tallow diet. Nevertheless, during the entire study duration, no variations in BW and ADG between the groups were found (p > 0.05), which may be attributed to the improved feed efficiency compensating for feed intake rather than directly enhancing weight gain.

Table 4. The effect of dietary fat on growth performance in finishing pigs.

Items	TRT1	TRT2	SEM	p value	Significance
Body weight, kg
Initial	50.36	50.36	0.84	0.997	NS
Week 4	71.03	70.60	0.93	0.714	NS
Week 8	93.80	92.87	0.65	0.481	NS
Week 12	118.10	119.43	0.91	0.428	NS
Week 4					NS
ADG, g	738.00	723.00	10.00	0.304	NS
ADFI, g	1962.00	1965.00	13.00	0.892	NS
FCR	2.66	2.72	0.02	0.279	NS
Week 8					NS
ADG, g	813.00	795.00	11.00	0.302	NS
ADFI, g	2422.00	2487.00	27.00	0.029	*
FCR	3.14	2.98	0.02	0.015	**
Week 12
ADG, g	916.00	901.00	14.00	0.309	NS
ADFI, g	3010.00	3078.00	39.00	0.141	NS
FCR	3.29	3.43	0.02	0.106	NS
Overall
ADG, g	822.00	810.00	11.00	0.299	NS
ADFI, g	2465.00	2510.00	24.00	0.173	NS
FCR	3.00	3.11	0.02	0.138	NS

Note: In the column, *Indicates significance at p < 0.05; **Indicates significance at p ≤ 0.01; and NS indicates non-significance (p > 0.05).
Abbreviation: ADG, average daily gain; ADFI, average daily feed intake; FCR, feed conversion ratio; SEM, standard error of means; TRT1, basal diet + tallow 2.8%; TRT2, basal diet + palm oil 2.8%.

3.2 ND

Table 5 describes the effect of dietary fat on the finishing pig's ND. No statistically significant differences (p > 0.05) were found in the digestibility of DM, CP, and E between treatments throughout the trial.

Table 5. The effect of dietary fat on nutrient digestibility in finishing pigs.

Items	TRT1	TRT2	SEM	p value	Significance
Dry matter	69.10	68.41	0.97	0.646	NS
Crude protein	65.21	64.20	1.03	0.506	NS
Energy	69.93	68.72	1.10	0.440	NS

Note: In the column, NS indicates non-significance (p > 0.05).
Abbreviations: SEM, standard error of means; TRT1, basal diet + tallow 2.8%; TRT2, basal diet + palm oil 2.8%.

3.3 BFT and Lean Percentage

The results of dietary fat treatments on finishing pigs' BFT and LMP are summarised in Table 6. Neither BFT nor LMP exhibited significant variation (p > 0.05) between the groups.

Table 6. The effect of dietary fat on backfat thickness in finishing pigs.

Items	TRT1	TRT2	SEM	p value	Significance
Initial
Backfat thickness, mm	9.40	9.20	0.30	0.591	NS
Lean muscle percentage, %	63.60	63.60	0.51	0.934	NS
Week 8
Backfat thickness, mm	16.00	15.60	0.32	0.178	NS
Lean muscle percentage, %	55.00	54.90	0.24	0.820	NS
Week 12
Backfat thickness, mm	19.40	18.90	0.30	0.233	NS
Lean muscle percentage, %	51.50	51.40	0.21	0.859	NS

Note: In the column, NS indicates non-significance (p > 0.05).
Abbreviation: SEM, standard error of means; TRT1, basal diet + tallow 2.8%; TRT2, basal diet + palm oil 2.8%.

3.4 Carcass Grade

The impact of dietary fat supplements on the carcass grade of finishing pigs is illustrated in Table 7. The dietary inclusion of PO and tallow did not affect carcass weight. Although carcass weight did not show a significant difference (p > 0.05), carcass grade was somewhat influenced by BFT, meat colour, and marbling. A greater percentage of pigs in the PO group attained a ‘1%’ carcass grade compared to those in the tallow group.

Table 7. The effect of dietary fat on carcass grade in finishing pigs.

Items	TRT1	TRT2	SEM	p value	Significance
Carcass weight, kg	91.00	90.60	0.59	0.669	NS
Backfat thickness, mm	18.80	18.20	0.37	0.325	NS
1+, %	21.50	22.50	—	—
1, %	40.00	42.50	—	—
2, %	35.00	37.50	—	—

Note: In the column, NS indicates non-significance (p > 0.05).
Abbreviation: SEM, standard error of means; TRT1, basal diet + tallow 2.8%; TRT2, basal diet + palm oil 2.8%.

3.5 Meat Quality

The dietary incorporation of PO enhanced the sensory assessment of marbling (p = 0.032) and colour (p = 0.019), and WHC (p = 0.048) compared with the tallow diet (Table 8). Other meat quality traits, including pH, cooking loss, and drip loss, were not significantly affected (p > 0.05) (Table 8).

Table 8. The effect of dietary fat on meat quality in finishing pigs.

Items	TRT1	TRT2	SEM	p value	Significance
pH	5.54	5.43	0.12	0.531	NS
Water holding capacity, %	49.67	55.41	3.54	0.048	*
Longissimus muscle area, mm²	6853.80	6552.39	377.80	0.358	NS
Meat colour
L*	51.13	51.79	0.33	0.733	NS
a*	32.81	32.97	0.25	0.444	NS
b*	6.02	6.16	0.13	0.414	NS
Cooking loss, %	31.86	32.74	0.39	0.307	NS
Drip loss, %
Day 1	7.76	7.86	0.43	0.357	NS
Day 3	13.89	14.04	0.50	0.388	NS
Day 5	19.51	19.66	0.19	0.847	NS
Day 7	24.76	25.04	0.14	0.857	NS
Sensory evaluation
Colour	3.12	3.19	0.20	0.019	**
Firmness	3.34	3.34	0.09	0.367	NS
Marbling	3.28	3.31	0.10	0.032	*
Iodine, ug	41.18	38.30	1.80	0.480	NS

Note: In the column, *Indicates significance at p < 0.05; **Indicates significance at p ≤ 0.01; and NS indicates non-significance (p > 0.05).
Abbreviation: SEM, standard error of means; TRT1, basal diet + tallow 2.8%; TRT2, basal diet + palm oil 2.8%.

3.6 Fatty Acid Profile of Meat

As shown in Table 9, pigs fed the PO diet had significantly higher levels of palmitoleic acid (C16:0), margaric acid (C17:0), and arachidic acid (C20:3n3) (C21:0) (p = 0.040, 0.005, and 0.027, respectively) than those fed the tallow diet. Moreover, the inclusion of PO led to an increase in ω-3 FA, the ω-6:ω-3 ratio, ΣPUFA, and MUFA (p = 0.008, 0.041, 0.047, and 0.031, respectively) compared to the tallow diet. Furthermore, adding PO to the finishing pig diet tended to increase linoelaidic acid (C18:2n6t), ΣUSFA, and PUFA (p = 0.082, 0.061, and 0.057) compared to the tallow diet. Although these trends were not statistically significant, they might suggest a positive change in the meat's FA profile.

Table 9. The effect of dietary fat on fatty acid in finishing pigs.

Items, %	TRT1	TRT2	SEM	p value	Significance
Lauric acid (C12:0)	0.13	0.16	0.01	0.228	NS
Myristic acid (C14:0)	1.09	1.12	0.01	0.396	NS
Palmitic acid (C16:0)	20.64	22.97	1.02	0.174	NS
Palmitoleic acid (C16:1)	1.75	2.20	0.11	0.040	*
Margaric acid (C17:0)	0.14	0.47	0.07	0.005	**
Heptadecenoic acid (C17:1)	0.10	0.18	0.06	0.201	NS
Stearic acid (C18:0)	10.85	11.10	1.12	0.879	NS
Elaidic acid (C18:1, t)	19.00	20.33	5.81	0.674	NS
Oleic acid (C18:1, c)	22.96	33.43	7.85	0.239	NS
Linoelaidic acid (C18:2n6t)	11.91	16.56	1.82	0.082	NS
Alpha-linolenic acid (C18:3n3)	0.53	0.77	0.11	0.211	NS
Arachidic acid (C20:0)	0.24	0.25	0.05	0.969	NS
Eicosenoic acid (C20:1)	0.86	0.99	0.10	0.389	NS
Eicosadienoic acid (C20:2)	0.60	0.61	0.04	0.781	NS
Dihomogammalinolenic acid (C20:3n6)	0.06	0.08	0.01	0.291	NS
Arachidic acid (C20:3n3)	0.11	0.17	0.02	0.027	*
Heneicosylic acid (C21:0)	0.08	0.09	0.01	0.665	NS
Erucic acid (C22:1n9)	0.01	0.03	0.01	0.168	NS
Tricosylic acid (C23:0)	0.05	0.08	0.01	0.212	NS
ω-3 fatty acid	0.53	0.85	0.07	0.008	**
ω-6 fatty acid	11.94	16.65	0.84	0.327	NS
ω-6: ω-3	18.23	22.28	0.61	0.041	*
ΣSFA	40.48	34.42	3.35	0.180	NS
ΣUSFA	59.51	65.57	2.53	0.061	NS
ΣMUFA	46.34	47.29	2.64	0.773	NS
ΣPUFA	13.17	18.27	1.87	0.047	*
MUFA/SFA	1.14	1.37	0.08	0.031	*
PUFA/SFA	0.32	0.53	0.07	0.057	*
Total FA	100.00	100.00	0.00	0.000	NS

Note: In the column, *Indicates significance at p < 0.05; **Indicates significance at p ≤ 0.01; and NS indicates non-significance (p > 0.05).
Abbreviations: FA, fatty acid; MUFA, monounsaturated fatty acid; PUFA, polyunsaturated fatty acid; SEM, standard error of means; SFA, saturated fatty acid; TRT1, basal diet + tallow 2.8%; TRT2, basal diet + palm oil 2.8%; USFA, unsaturated fatty acid.

4 Discussion

As a result of increasing consumer demand for safe pork production, the use of alternative fat sources such as vegetable oils, fish oils, and algae oils in animal feed has risen (Baker et al. 2016; Komprda et al. 2021). While animal fat has usually been incorporated into pig diets, it is characterised by lower energy value, reduced digestibility, and a higher proportion of SFA compared to vegetable and fish oils (Lauridsen et al. 2007). Among these fat sources, vegetable oils are widely utilised and considered a safer option in the market compared to animal fats (Ritchie 2024). This study aimed to evaluate the impact of fat inclusion on the performance and FA composition of meat in finishing pigs. Given the observed benefits of PO supplementation on GP and meat quality under controlled conditions, these findings may support its practical application in commercial pig production systems. However, further validation under varying conditions is necessary to ensure consistency and economic viability.

Fat supplementation in monogastric animals offers high energy density and FAs, contributing to efficient growth and productivity (Verge-Mèrida et al. 2021). However, the effects of different fat sources on GP remain inconsistent. For instance, Adeola et al. (2013) found that pigs fed soybean oil or tallow exhibited reduced ADFI and ADG, while other studies noted no significant differences in performance parameters (Mitchaothai et al. 2007; Apple et al. 2009). However, pigs fed vegetable oil showed better post-weaning GP compared to those fed animal fat, according to Cera et al. (1989). Conversely, there were no differences in GP by adding a 5% PO supplement to growing and finishing pig diets (Verge-Mèrida et al. 2021). In contrast to our research, pigs fed 3% PKO had lower ADFI and higher feed efficiency than pigs fed the control (CON) diet (Lee et al. 2013). On the contrary, the data from the research (Teye et al. 2006) indicated that adding 2.8% PKO to diets based on wheat, barley, and soybean meal had no effect on pig GP. However, finishing pigs fed dietary fats (PO or tallow) had a greater G:F ratio, greater ADG, and lower ADFI compared with pigs fed the CON diets (Liu et al. 2018). Azain (2001) stated that fat supplements could improve feed efficiency and palatability, thus improving the GP of pigs. The increase in ADFI and decrease in FCR observed in pigs fed the PO diet could be attributed to several factors. The higher fat content in the diet may make the feed more appealing to the pigs, encouraging higher consumption. Furthermore, fats like PO can stimulate the secretion of digestive enzymes and improve the absorption of nutrients, which may also contribute to increased feed intake (Mitchaothai et al. 2007). Our findings, which showed increased ADFI but no improvement in ADG or final BW with PO supplementation, align with that PO increases feed intake but does not necessarily enhance growth. This may be attributed to factors such as energy utilisation efficiency and metabolic constraints since higher feed palatability may not always translate to better nutrient conversion.

A medium-chain triglyceride found in vegetable oil helps animals to digest food faster than a saturated triglyceride found in animal fat (Zollitsch et al. 1997). The digestibility of nutrients did not differ significantly between treatment groups in our study, consistent with Albin et al. (2001), who found no effect of PO on DM or CP digestibility. Conversely, the finishing pig fed 3% of crude PO (CPOmix13) diet improved the ND of DM, CP, and ME (Tartrakoon et al. 2021). According to research, the pig-fed diet supplemented with coconut oil had a higher ND compared with tallow (Cera et al. 1989). However, the supplementation of increasing amounts of tallow into the pig diet led to higher levels of DM and ME (Adeola et al. 2013). Su et al. (2015) denoted that diets containing soybean oil had a comparatively higher digestible energy and metabolisable energy content than diets containing PO. Moreover, the dietary inclusion of fat sources affected the apparent digestibility of energy in growing-finishing pigs (Mitchaothai et al. 2007). Such discrepancies may arise due to the variability in the unsaturated-to-saturated FA ratio of the fat source, which plays a key role in digestibility (Su et al. 2015). The lower digestibility observed with high PO inclusion (Verge-Mèrida et al. 2021) may be related to its higher SFA content, which affects absorption and energy extraction.

The BFT was enhanced by formulating the pig's diet with 5% fat (beef tallow [BT]) (Apple et al. 2009), which contradicts our results. Similarly, the high-lean pigs' LM intramuscular fat was unaffected but increased on average lean pigs by the addition of BT to the pig diet (Eggert et al. 2007). Additionally, finishing pigs fed PO had higher BFT at the 10th rib compared with those fed tallow (Liu et al. 2018). In line with our study, carcass weight, yield, or BFT of pigs remained unaffected by receiving dietary PO supplementation (Verge-Mèrida et al. 2021). On the other hand, the dietary supplementation of a fat source in the pig diet increased carcass weight (Apple et al. 2009), while oil supplements in the pig diet did not affect carcass traits (Teye et al. 2006). Furthermore, feeding a diet with fat had no significant influence on carcass characteristics (carcass weight, back-fat thickness, and fat-lean ratio) in swine, similar to our experiment (Mitchaothai et al. 2007). Moreover, the inclusion of dietary fat sources, whether individually or in combination, did not result in any detrimental effects on BFT, LMP, or overall meat quality (Hoque et al. 2025). The inconsistent results regarding carcass grade and BFT may be due to variations in the carcasses' overall fatness, the dose level of the fat source, age, and species of the animal.

The observed improvements in meat colour and marbling following PO supplementation may be attributed to the higher UFA content of PO. These findings are consistent with previous studies reporting enhanced meat quality traits with dietary fat sources rich in UFAs (Ratti 2014). In terms of meat quality, adding PO to the diet improved the sensory evaluation (marbling and colour) and WHC of the meat compared to a tallow diet in our research. This improvement may be attributed to the higher content of UFA in PO, which enhances lipid oxidation stability and intramuscular fat deposition, thereby positively influencing meat colour and marbling (Wood et al. 2004; Kouba and Mourot 2011). Conversely, the supplementation of BT into the swine diet did not affect the firmness or marbling scores (Eggert et al. 2007) and WHC (Park et al. 2012) of the meat. As mentioned, Corino et al. (2002) stated that supplementing a long-term diet with added fat had no significant effect on the meat quality or sensory characteristics of thick pig loin. In contrast to our study, supplementation of PKO or BT decreased the sensory evaluation of finishing pig meat quality (Lee et al. 2013). However, the animal fat (10%) did not differ in terms of drip losses, cooking losses, shear force, or marbling of swine, according to Miller et al. (1990). Insignificant results were found by Mitchaothai et al. (2007) on the meat quality trait by adding fat to swine diets, which is inconsistent with our results. The beneficial effects of dietary fat sources may be attributed to the increased proportion of MUFAs and PUFAs, which are known to enhance meat juiciness, tenderness, and overall sensory attributes (Wood et al. 2004; Pastorelli et al. 2003).

The inclusion of dietary fats is a valuable strategy to enhance pork quality and optimise its FA composition to meet nutritional objectives (Leikus et al. 2018). Numerous elements of meat quality, such as tissue hardness, storage stability, and nutritive value, are influenced by FA composition (Wood et al. 2004). In this study, the FA percentages of palmitoleic acid (C16:1), margaric acid (C17:0), arachidic acid (C20:3n3), ω-3 FA, ω-6: ω-3 FA, ΣPUFA, MUFA, ΣUSFA, linoelaidic acid (C18:2n6t), and PUFA were influenced by consuming a PO-supplemented diet compared to a tallow diet in finishing pigs. The regulation of FA synthesis in PO involves microRNAs, revealing a sophisticated metabolic network that might be exploited to improve ω-3 FA content (Zheng et al. 2019). According to Apple et al. (2009), the fat supplement had no effect on the FA (%) of myristic (14:0), stearic (18:0), and arachidic (20:0) in the lean meat (LM); however, the percentages of the short-chain FA (lauric [12:0] acids) in the LM were lowest in BT-fed pigs. They also added that, compared to other treatment groups, the percentages of palmitoleic acid (16:1c), 18:3n-3, and 18:1t in BT-fed pigs significantly increased. Moreover, pigs fed 10% BT for up to 6 weeks did not affect the proportions of 14:0, 16:0, 18:0, 20:0, and total SFA in the LM (Koch et al. 1968). In addition, feeding pigs PKO or tallow decreased palmitoleic acid (16:1) on backfat quality and increased α-linolenic acid (18:3n-3) on belly fat quality (Lee et al. 2013). In contradiction with the current experiment, Teye et al. (2006) found that the total FA (intramuscular fat) composition of the LM was unaffected by the dietary PO inclusion, but PKO inclusion decreased the P:S ratio (PUFA to SFA), enhanced the concentrations of lauric (12:0), myristic (14:0), palmitic (16:0), and stearic (18:0), and decreased the concentration of linoleic acid (18:2). The percentages of MUFA were higher in all tissues of the pigs fed 5% BT, in agreement with our observations (Mitchaothai et al. 2007). Furthermore, the FA composition of the LM showed that pigs fed the animal-based diet (AT) had more palmitic, palmitoleic, and α-linolenic acids than those fed the plant-based diet (PO) (Morel et al. 2013). Pigs fed high PUFA diets had lower levels of SFA, including C16:0 and C18:0, in their backfat, while showing higher concentrations of C18:2, C18:3, and total PUFA compared to those fed a low PUFA diet (Bryhni et al. 2002). The consumption of fish oil leads to an increase in ω-3 FAs in meat (Irie and Sakimoto 1992). Additionally, dietary fat had an impact on the FA profile of meat, which is consistent with our research (Verge-Mèrida et al. 2021). The level of neutral lipids and structural variation of fat content improved the FA profile of pigs (Cameron et al. 2000). Moreover, several factors affect the FA composition in pigs, including diet, genetic background, sex, age, and carcass fat content (Wood et al. 2004), which may contribute to discrepancies among different studies.

While this study provides valuable insights into the effects of dietary fat inclusion in finishing pigs, certain limitations should be acknowledged. First, the 12-week trial duration may not fully capture the long-term effects of dietary fat inclusion on GP, carcass traits, meat quality, and meat FA profile. Future studies with longer feeding periods could provide a more comprehensive evaluation. Second, the experiment was conducted under controlled conditions, which may not fully reflect the variability in commercial production systems, where differences in housing, management, and environmental factors could influence outcomes. Third, the study focused on a specific genetic background ([Landrace × Yorkshire] × Duroc), and responses to dietary fat inclusion may vary across different pig breeds or genetic lines. Lastly, only two fat sources (tallow and PO) were evaluated, whereas other dietary fat sources, such as soybean oil, canola oil, or fish oil, could have different impacts on performance and meat quality. Future research should expand fat source diversity and include longer trials under commercial conditions to improve applicability.

In the context of modern science communication, researchers are encouraged to disseminate their findings beyond academic circles. Transparent and accessible sharing through social media platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram can counter misinformation in animal nutrition and help educate consumers about evidence-based practices. A study on Instagram's role in science communication (Lamanna et al. 2025) highlights how visual content simplifies complex scientific messages and promotes engagement. Incorporating such strategies not only broadens the reach of swine nutrition research but also enhances public trust and credibility in animal science. In the case of our study, sharing the positive effects of dietary PO on pig growth and meat quality through transparent social media communication can help dispel misconceptions about fat use in swine diets and improve public confidence in evidence-based animal nutrition. By leveraging digital platforms and influencer-driven outreach, researchers can foster informed dialogue and strengthen public understanding of scientifically sound practices in pig production.

5 Conclusion

The inclusion of PO in the finishing pig diet led to improved performance, as evidenced by higher ADFI and better FCR, compared to tallow. Additionally, improvements in meat quality parameters such as WHC and sensory attributes suggest that PO positively influences the eating quality of pork. The enhanced FA profile observed in the PO-fed group also indicates a potential nutritional advantage, aligning with consumer demand for healthier meat products. Overall, the findings of this study support using PO instead of tallow as a dietary fat source in finishing pig diets. Supplementing with PO may serve as a practical strategy to enhance production efficiency and meat quality, potentially contributing to industry standards for meat quality. For practical application, pig producers could consider incorporating PO into finishing pig diets to boost both GP and meat quality. Future research should evaluate the long-term effects of PO inclusion across different growth stages, production environments, and genetic lines. It would also be valuable to investigate how varying inclusion levels of PO interact with other dietary components, such as protein and fibre, to further optimise nutrient utilisation and meat quality outcomes.

Ethics Statement

The Animal Care and Committee of Dankook University gave its approval to all procedures. The procedures were developed to meet the standards of the European Union (2010/63/EU Directive).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Open Research

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

Adeola, O., D. C. Mahan, M. J. Azain, et al. 2013. “Dietary Lipid Sources and Levels for Weanling Pigs.” Journal of Animal Science 91, no. 9: 4216–4225. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2013-6297.
10.2527/jas.2013-6297
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Albin, D. M., M. R. Smiricky, J. E. Wubben, and V. M. Gabert. 2001. “The Effect of Dietary Level of Soybean Oil and Palm Oil on Apparent Ileal Amino Acid Digestibility and Postprandial Flow Patterns of Chromic Oxide and Amino Acids in Pigs.” Canadian Journal of Animal Science 81: 495–503. https://doi.org/10.4141/A00-104.
10.4141/A00-104
CAS Web of Science® Google Scholar
AOAC International. 2010. “Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC International. Current Through Revision 3.” 18th Edition. Gaithersburg, MD (USA).
Google Scholar
Apple, J. K., C. V. Maxwell, D. L. Galloway, S. Hutchison, and C. R. Hamilton. 2009. “Interactive Effects of Dietary Fat Source and Slaughter Weight In Growing-Finishing Swine: I. Growth Performance and Longissimus Muscle Fatty Acid Composition.” Journal of Animal Science 87, no. 4: 1407–1422. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2008-1453.
10.2527/jas.2008-1453
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Atoo, A. F., C. L. Levesque, R. Thaler, K. Underwood, E. Beyer, and J. Y. Perez-Palencia. 2025. “Effect of Feeding High Oleic Soybean Oil to Finishing Pigs on Growth Performance, Carcass Characteristics, and Meat Quality.” Journal of Animal Science 103: skae393. https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/skae393.
10.1093/jas/skae393
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Azain, M. J. 2001. “ Fat in Swine Nutrition.” In Swine Nutrition, Edited by A. J. Lewis and L. L. Southern, 95–105. CRC Press.
Google Scholar
Babalola, T. O., D. F. Apata, J. S. Omotosho, and M. A. Adebayo. 2011. “Differential Effects of Dietary Lipids on Growth Performance, Digestibility, Fatty Acid Composition and Histology of African Catfish (Heterobranchus longifilis) Fingerlings.” Food and Nutrition Sciences 2: 11–21. https://doi.org/10.4236/fns.2011.21002.
10.4236/fns.2011.21002
CAS Google Scholar
Baker, E. J., E. A. Miles, G. C. Burdge, P. Yaqoob, and P. C. Calder. 2016. “Metabolism and Functional Effects of Plant-Derived omega-3 Fatty Acids in Humans.” Progress in Lipid Research 64: 30–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plipres.2016.07.002.
10.1016/j.plipres.2016.07.002
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Biswas, S., and I. H. Kim. 2022. “Evaluation of Distillers Dried Grains with Solubles to Partially Replace Soybean Meal in the Diet of Growing-Finishing Pigs.” Journal of Animal and Feed Sciences 31: 135–141. https://doi.org/10.22358/jafs/147604/2022.
10.22358/jafs/147604/2022
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Bryhni, E. A., N. P. Kjos, R. Ofstad, and M. Hunt. 2002. “Polyunsaturated Fat and Fish Oil in Diets for Growing-Finishing Pigs: Effects on Fatty Acid Composition and Meat, Fat, and Sausage Quality.” Meat Science 62: 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0309-1740(01)00211-X.
10.1016/S0309-1740(01)00211-X
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Cameron, N. D., M. Enser, G. R. Nute, et al. 2000. “Genotype With Nutrition Interaction on Fatty Acid Composition of Intramuscular Fat and the Relationship With Flavour of Pig Meat.” Meat Science 55: 187–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0309-1740(99)00142-4.
10.1016/S0309-1740(99)00142-4
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Cera, K. R., D. C. Mahan, and G. A. Reinhart. 1989. “Apparent Fat Digestibilities and Performance Responses of Postweaning Swine Fed Diets Supplemented with Coconut Oil, Corn Oil or Tallow.” Journal of Animal Science 67: 2040–2047. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas1989.6782040x.
10.2527/jas1989.6782040x
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Corino, C., S. Magni, E. Pagliarini, R. Rossi, G. Pastorelli, and L. M. Chiesa. 2002. “Effects of Dietary Fats on Meat Quality and Sensory Characteristics of Heavy Pig Loins.” Meat Science 60: 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0309-1740(01)00095-X.
10.1016/S0309-1740(01)00095-X
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Dang, D. X., and I. H. Kim. 2020. “Effects of Dietary Supplementation of Quillaja saponin on Growth Performance, Nutrient Digestibility, Fecal Gas Emissions, and Meat Quality In Finishing Pigs.” Journal of Applied Animal Research 48: 397–401. https://doi.org/10.1080/09712119.2020.1813739.
10.1080/09712119.2020.1813739
CAS Web of Science® Google Scholar
Eggert, J. M., A. L. Grant, and A. P. Schinckel. 2007. “Factors Affecting Fat Distribution in Pork Carcasses.” Professional Animal Scientist 23: 42–53. https://doi.org/10.1532/S1080-7446(15)30935-9.
10.1532/S1080-7446(15)30935-9
Google Scholar
Gatlin, L. A., M. T. See, J. A. Hansen, and J. Odle. 2003. “Hydrogenated Dietary Fat Improves Pork Quality of Pigs from Two Lean Genotypes.” Journal of Animal Science 81: 1989–1997. https://doi.org/10.2527/2003.8181989x.
10.2527/2003.8181989x
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Gläser, K. R., C. Wenk, and M. R. L. Scheeder. 2002. “Effect of Dietary Mono-And Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids on the Fatty Acid Composition of Pigs' Adipose Tissues.” Archiv Für Tierernaehrung 56, no. 1: 51–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/00039420214178.
10.1080/00039420214178
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Ha, D. M., G. D. Kim, J. C. Han, et al. 2010. “Effects of Dietary Energy Level on Growth Efficiency and Carcass Quality Traits of Finishing Pigs.” Journal of Animal Science and Technology 52: 191–198. https://doi.org/10.5187/JAST.2010.52.3.191.
10.5187/JAST.2010.52.3.191
CAS Google Scholar
Hoque, M. R., J. H. Park, and I. H. Kim. 2025. “Evaluation of Different Fat Sources and Their Combinations on Growth Performance, Nutrient Digestibility, Fecal Score, and Meat Quality of Pigs of Different Ages.” Animal Feed Science and Technology 319: 116153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2024.116153.
10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2024.116153
CAS Web of Science® Google Scholar
Irie, M., and M. Sakimoto. 1992. “Fat Characteristics of Pigs Fed Fish Oil Containing Eicosapentaenoic and Docosahexaenoic Acids.” Journal of Animal Science 70, no. 2: 470–477. https://doi.org/10.2527/1992.702470x.
10.2527/1992.702470x
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Jørgensen, H., K. Jakobsen, and B. O. Eggum. 1993. “Determination of Endogenous Fat and Fatty Acids at the Terminal Ileum and on Faeces in Growing Pigs.” Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A - Animal Science 43: 101–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/09064709309410151.
10.1080/09064709309410151
CAS Google Scholar
KAPE—Korea Institute for Animal Products Quality Evaluation. 2010. “Animal Products Grade System: The Pork Carcass Grading System.” Accessed September 20, 2014. http://www.ekape.or.kr/view/eng/system/pork.asp.
Google Scholar
Koch, D. E., A. M. Pearson, W. T. Magee, J. A. Hoefer, and B. S. Schweigert. 1968. “Effect of Diet on the Fatty Acid Composition of Pork Fat.” Journal of Animal Science 27: 360–365. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas1968.272360x.
10.2527/jas1968.272360x
CAS Google Scholar
Komprda, T., M. Jůzl, M. Matejovičová, et al. 2021. “Fatty Acid Composition, Oxidative Stability, and Sensory Evaluation of the Sausages Produced From the Meat of Pigs Fed a Diet Enriched with 8% of Fish Oil.” Journal of Food Science 86, no. 6: 2312–2326. https://doi.org/10.1111/1750-3841.15749.
10.1111/1750-3841.15749
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Kouba, M., and J. Mourot. 2011. “A Review of Nutritional Effects on Fat Composition of Animal Products with Special Emphasis on n-3 Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids.” Biochimie 93, no. 1: 13–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biochi.2010.02.027.
10.1016/j.biochi.2010.02.027
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Lamanna, M., E. Muca, G. Buonaiuto, A. Formigoni, and D. Cavallini. 2025. “From Posts to Practice: Instagram's Role in Veterinary Dairy Cow Nutrition Education—How Does the Audience Interact and Apply Knowledge? A Survey Study.” Journal of Dairy Science 108, no. 2: 1659–1671. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2024-25347.
10.3168/jds.2024-25347
CAS Google Scholar
Lauridsen, C., T. Bruun Christensen, U. Halekoh, and S. Krogh Jensen. 2007. “Alternative Fat Sources to Animal Fat for Pigs.” Lipid Technology 19, no. 7: 156–159. https://doi.org/10.1002/lite.200700051.
10.1002/lite.200700051
CAS Google Scholar
Lee, J. W., D. Y. Kil, B. D. Keever, et al. 2013. “Carcass Fat Quality of Pigs is Not Improved by Adding Corn Germ, Beef Tallow, Palm Kernel Oil, or Glycerol to Finishing Diets Containing Distillers Dried Grains with Solubles.” Journal of Animal Science 91, no. 5: 2426–2437. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2012-5328.
10.2527/jas.2012-5328
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Leikus, R., V. Juskiene, R. Juska, et al. 2018. “Effect of Linseed Oil Sediment in the Diet of Pigs on the Growth Performance and Fatty Acid Profile of Meat.” Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia 47: 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1590/rbz4720170104.
10.1590/rbz4720170104
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Lima, V. B. S., L. R. B. Dourado, L. P. Machado, et al. 2016. “Cottonseed Oil in Diets for Broilers in the Pre-Starter and Starter Phases.” PLoS One 11, no. 1: e0147695. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0147695.
10.1371/journal.pone.0147695
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Liu, Y., D. Y. Kil, V. G. Perez-Mendoza, M. Song, and J. E. Pettigrew. 2018. “Supplementation of Different Fat Sources Affects Growth Performance and Carcass Composition of Finishing Pigs.” Journal of Animal Science and Biotechnology 9: 56. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40104-018-0274-9.
10.1186/s40104-018-0274-9
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Miller, M. F., S. D. Shackelford, K. D. Hayden, and J. O. Reagan. 1990. “Determination of the Alteration in Fatty Acid Profiles, Sensory Characteristics and Carcass Traits of Swine Fed Elevated Levels of Monounsaturated Fats in the Diet.” Journal of Animal Science 68: 1624–1631. https://doi.org/10.2527/1990.6861624x.
10.2527/1990.6861624x
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Minelli, G., K. D'Ambra, P. Macchioni, and D. P. Lo Fiego. 2023. “Effects of Pig Dietary n-6/n-3 Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids Ratio and Gender on Carcass Traits, Fatty Acid Profiles, Nutritional Indices of Lipid Depots and Oxidative Stability of Meat in Medium–Heavy Pigs.” Foods 12, no. 22: 4106. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12224106.
10.3390/foods12224106
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Mitchaothai, J., C. Yuangklang, S. Wittayakun, et al. 2007. “Effect of Dietary Fat Type on Meat Quality and Fatty Acid Composition of Various Tissues In Growing-Finishing Swine.” Meat Science 76: 95–101. j.meatsci.2006.10.017.
10.1016/j.meatsci.2006.10.017
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Morel, P. C. H., J. A. M. Janz, M. Zou, R. W. Purchas, W. H. Hendriks, and B. H. P. Wilkinson. 2008. “The Influence of Diets Supplemented With Conjugated Linoleic Acid, Selenium, and Vitamin E, with or without Animal Protein, on the Composition of Pork from Female Pigs.” Journal of Animal Science 86: 1145–1155. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2007-0358.
10.2527/jas.2007-0358
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Morel, P. C. H., J. Leong, W. G. M. Nuijten, R. W. Purchas, and B. H. P. Wilkinson. 2013. “Effect of Lipid Type on Growth Performance, Meat Quality and the Content of Long Chain n−3 Fatty Acids in Pork Meat.” Meat Science 95, no. 2: 151–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2013.04.047.
10.1016/j.meatsci.2013.04.047
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Mountzouris, K. C., K. Fegeros, and G. Papadopoulos. 1999. “Utilization of Fats Based on the Composition of Sow Milk Fat in the Diet of Weanling Pigs.” Animal Feed Science and Technology 77: 115–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-8401(98)00242-9.
10.1016/S0377-8401(98)00242-9
Web of Science® Google Scholar
N. Ochang, S., O. A. Fagbenr, and O. T. Adebayo. 2007. “Influence of Dietary Palm Oil on Growth Response, Carcass Composition, Haematology and Organoleptic Properties of Juvenile Nile Tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus.” Pakistan Journal of Nutrition 6: 424–429.
10.3923/pjn.2007.424.429
Google Scholar
NPPC (National Pork Producers Council). 2000. Composition and Quality Assessment Procedures. National Pork Producers Council.
Google Scholar
NRC (National Research Council). 2012. Nutrient Requirements of Swine ( 11th Revised Edition). The National Academies Press.
Google Scholar
Park, J. C., S. C. Kim, S. D. Lee, et al. 2012. “Effects of Dietary Fat Types on Growth Performance, Pork Quality, and Gene Expression in Growing-Finishing Pigs.” Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 25, no. 12: 1759–1767. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2012.12416.
10.5713/ajas.2012.12416
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Pastorelli, G., S. Magni, R. Rossi, et al. 2003. “Influence of Dietary Fat, on Fatty Acid Composition and Sensory Properties of Dry-Cured Parma Ham.” Meat Science 65, no. 1: 571–580. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0309-1740(02)00250-4.
10.1016/S0309-1740(02)00250-4
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Ratti, R. 2014. “The Influence of Animal Nutrition on Meat Quality.” Doctoral Program in Animal Nutrition and Food Safety. 2013−2014. 121 p. https://air.unimi.it/retrieve/handle/2434/259595/358372/phd_unimi_R09541.pdf.
Google Scholar
Ritchie, H. 2024. “Palm Oil. Our World in Data.” Accessed August 28, 2024. https://ourworldindata.org/palm-oil.
Google Scholar
SAS Institute Inc. SAS/STAT 9.4 User's Guide. SAS Institute Inc. 2014. https://documentation.sas.com/doc/en/pgmsascdc/v_034/statug.pdf.
Google Scholar
Soni-Guillermo, E., J. L. Figueroa-Velasco, M. T. Sánchez-Torres-Esqueda, et al. 2022. “Efectividad Del Aceite De Canola En Dietas De Cerdos Para Mejorar El Perfil Lipídico De La Carne.” Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Pecuarias 12, no. 4: 1083–1097. https://doi.org/10.22319/rmcp.v12i4.5594.
10.22319/rmcp.v12i4.5594
Google Scholar
Su, Y., Y. She, Q. Huang, et al. 2015. “The Effect of Inclusion Level of Soybean Oil and Palm Oil on Their Digestible and Metabolizable Energy Content Determined With the Difference and Regression Method When Fed to Growing Pigs.” Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 28, no. 12: 1751–1759. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.14.0498.
10.5713/ajas.14.0498
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Tartrakoon, W., P. Khanchit, N. Phomsak, and S. Thongdee. 2016. “The Use of Crude Palm Oil In Finishing Pigs' Diet: Effects on Growth Performance and Nutrient Digestibility.” AGROFOR 1, no. 2: 28–35. https://doi.org/10.7251/AGRENG1602028T.
10.7251/AGRENG1602028T
Google Scholar
Teye, G. A., P. R. Sheard, F. M. Whittington, G. R. Nute, A. Stewart, and J. D. Wood. 2006. “Influence of Dietary Oils and Protein Level on Pork Quality. 1. Effects on Muscle Fatty Acid Composition, Carcass, Meat and Eating Quality.” Meat Science 73: 157–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2005.11.010.
10.1016/j.meatsci.2005.11.010
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Upadhaya, S. D., and I. H. Kim. 2021. “Supplemental Effects of Fish Oil and Powdered/Coated Docosahexaenoic Acid on the Growth Performance, Nutrient Digestibility, Blood Profile and Fecal Coliform and Lactic Acid Bacteria Counts in Weaner Pigs.” Animal Feed Science and Technology 275: 114885. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2021.114885.
10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2021.114885
CAS Web of Science® Google Scholar
Verge-Mèrida, G., A. C. Barroeta, F. Guardiola, et al. 2021. “Crude and Acid Oils from Olive Pomace as Alternative Fat Sources In Growing-Finishing Pigs.” Animal 15, no. 12: 100389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.animal.2021.100389.
10.1016/j.animal.2021.100389
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Wahid, S. T., B. G. Lee, D. H. Baek, and I. H. Kim. 2024. “Supplemental Effects of Coated Fish Oil Enriched in Docosahexaenoic Acid on the Performance, Blood Lipid Profile and Meat Fatty Acid Profile in Finishing Pigs.” Animal Feed Science and Technology 310: 115923. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2024.115923.
10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2024.115923
CAS Web of Science® Google Scholar
Wood, J. D., R. I. Richardson, G. R. Nute, et al. 2004. “Effects of Fatty Acids on Meat Quality: A Review.” Meat Science 66, no. 1: 21–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0309-1740(03)00022-6.
10.1016/S0309-1740(03)00022-6
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Zheng, Y., C. Chen, Y. Liang, et al. 2019. “Genome-Wide Association Analysis of the Lipid and Fatty Acid Metabolism Regulatory Network In the Mesocarp of Oil Palm (Elaeis guineensis Jacq.) Based on Small Noncoding Rna Sequencing.” Tree Physiology 39, no. 3: 356–371. https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/tpy091.
10.1093/treephys/tpy091
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Zollitsch, W., W. Knaus, F. Aichinger, and F. Lettner. 1997. “Effects of Different Dietary Fat Sources on Performance and Carcass Characteristics of Broilers.” Animal Feed Science and Technology 66: 63–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-8401(96)01126-1.
10.1016/S0377-8401(96)01126-1
CAS Web of Science® Google Scholar

Early View

Online Version of Record before inclusion in an issue

Evaluating the Impacts of Dietary Fats (Tallow and Palm Oil) on Growth Performance, Nutrient Digestibility, and Meat Fatty Acid Composition in Finishing Pigs

ABSTRACT

1 Introduction

2 Materials and Methods

2.1 Animal Husbandry and Dietary Regimens

2.2 GP and Nutrient Digestibility (ND)

2.3 Meat BFT, Lean Percentage, and Carcass Grade

2.4 Examine Meat Quality

2.5 Meat Fatty Acid Profile

2.6 Statistical Analysis

3 Results

3.1 GP

3.2 ND

3.3 BFT and Lean Percentage

3.4 Carcass Grade

3.5 Meat Quality

3.6 Fatty Acid Profile of Meat

4 Discussion

5 Conclusion

Ethics Statement

Conflicts of Interest

Open Research

Data Availability Statement

References

References

Information

About Wiley Online Library

Help & Support

Opportunities

Connect with Wiley

Evaluating the Impacts of Dietary Fats (Tallow and Palm Oil) on Growth Performance, Nutrient Digestibility, and Meat Fatty Acid Composition in Finishing Pigs

ABSTRACT

1 Introduction

2 Materials and Methods

2.1 Animal Husbandry and Dietary Regimens

2.2 GP and Nutrient Digestibility (ND)

2.3 Meat BFT, Lean Percentage, and Carcass Grade

2.4 Examine Meat Quality

2.5 Meat Fatty Acid Profile

2.6 Statistical Analysis

3 Results

3.1 GP

3.2 ND

3.3 BFT and Lean Percentage

3.4 Carcass Grade

3.5 Meat Quality

3.6 Fatty Acid Profile of Meat

4 Discussion

5 Conclusion

Ethics Statement

Conflicts of Interest

Open Research

Data Availability Statement

References

References

Related

Information